Appeal No. 2001-0117
Application No. 08/757,173
References
The Examiner does not rely on any references.
Rejections at Issue
Claims 2, 7, 18, 20, 22 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.1
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 7, 18, 20, 22 and 24.
Appellants have not made any arguments as to the rejection
of claims 2, 18, 20, 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The Examiner argues that claim 2 is indefinite
because a phase of a frequency spectrum cannot be identical to a
frequency spectrum and claims 7, 18, 20, 22 and 24 are indefinite
because they are dependent on canceled claims. See page 3 of the
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7
through 16 and 18 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Orris. See page 1 of the answer.
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007